Trump Asks Zelensky to Stop Hitting the Russian Refineries He Says Russia Has Already 'Lost'

The logic from Washington runs like this: Ukrainian drones knock out Russian refineries, diesel gets more expensive worldwide, consumers and voters get angry — so Ukraine should stop.

Kyiv's logic is different: those refineries fund the war that kills Ukrainians every day. On the very night Zelensky flew to New York, Russian missiles and drones were hitting Kyiv, Dnipro, Kryvyi Rih and Pavlohrad.

In Dnipro, four people were killed in a strike on an industrial facility, according to Ukrainian media. A three-year-old boy was killed in the Mykolaiv region. Power was cut in seven regions, with roughly 100,000 customers left without electricity in the Chernihiv region.

That same night, Ukrainian drones struck the Kuibyshev refinery in Russia's Samara region — one person was killed and four wounded, according to local authorities. Kyiv also confirmed a strike on the Bashneft-UNPZ refinery in Ufa, in Bashkortostan. Across Russia, one person was killed and fifteen injured overnight.

That is the backdrop against which the "energy truce" is being discussed in New York.

What Trump is asking for

On September 21, Trump posted on Truth Social that Russia had "lost control" of its diesel sector because of the war in Ukraine. That was not criticism. It was an acknowledgment of effectiveness — and, at the same time, the reason he wants the strikes to stop.

According to Axios, Trump raised the issue directly in a phone call with Zelensky on September 20, urging him to halt the refinery strikes over the diesel shortage and rising prices. The Financial Times has reported the same pressure campaign.

One detail is worth flagging. Trump has previously claimed Ukraine and Russia agreed not to strike energy infrastructure. Neither Kyiv nor Moscow has ever confirmed such a formal arrangement, and after this week's strikes it has effectively collapsed — if it ever existed.

What Zelensky is offering

Kyiv's answer is not "no" — it is "let's be honest about the terms." On September 21, Zelensky said Ukraine is ready for a mutual halt to strikes on energy — and even food — infrastructure. The key word is mutual. Ukraine is not proposing to unilaterally shelve its most effective long-range card; it is proposing a trade: we stop hitting your refineries, you stop hitting our power plants and heating infrastructure.

The second part of Ukraine's ask is no secret: Patriot batteries. According to the AP, Zelensky will again press for American air defense systems — the only effective answer to the Russian ballistic missiles against which Ukraine remains most exposed. Before meeting Trump, Zelensky sat down with Emmanuel Macron in New York to discuss air defenses and winter support.

Kyiv also brought a card of its own: a new "drone deal." Immediately after landing, Zelensky said the agreement was ready for signature. Its exact contents and conditions had not been disclosed at the time of writing.

Why this is strategic, not technical

The refinery campaign is, without exaggeration, Ukraine's most effective long-range tool. Russia's budget runs on oil revenue; every refinery knocked offline is money that never reaches the war effort. Trump has now effectively said so in public.

That is precisely why Washington's request stings in Kyiv: Ukraine is being asked to shelve a weapon that works — not for peace, but for the global fuel price. To a Ukrainian who spent the night without power in Chernihiv, that trade looks, to put it mildly, lopsided.

There is a serious counterargument, and it deserves an honest hearing. Diesel is not an abstraction: it moves trucks, runs tractors, heats homes. Rising prices hit the whole world, including Ukraine's own allies. If higher fuel costs erode American support for Kyiv, Ukraine could lose more than it gains from burning refineries. That is a real argument — and very likely the one Trump put on the table.

What remains unknown

The biggest unknown is the outcome of the meeting itself. At the time of writing it was underway or not yet concluded, and no agreements had been signed.

It is also unclear whether Moscow is prepared to accept any "energy truce" at all: the Kremlin has issued no official reaction in the materials available. And the earlier episode — Trump's claim of a mutual understanding on energy strikes, never confirmed by either side — shows how fragile such constructs are without real guarantees.

So the question of the week is not really "will there be a truce?" It is this: will Ukraine pay with its best instrument for a promise no one can enforce? The answer may come within days.